Yesterday, Michael Horowitz, the Inspector General released his report on James Comey and his leaks of his memos. I actually broke my 20 page reading rule and read the entire report because Comey is such a controversial figure. There are theories that he is bad or good, but few have admitted how complicated of a person he is to figure out. I even wrote a post called The Comey Conundrum highlighting some of the reasons why I do not think that Comey was a good guy. Until recently I had largely analyzed by reading other people’s theories and seeing where they went off the rails and would try to use their data points to form a more realistic scenario. Who knew that I probably would have figured out more if I didn’t let my conformation bias get in the way of just reading words for the words that they were.
To summarize the memos themselves, while James Comey was FBI Director, he wrote 7 memos that recounted his interactions with Donald Trump during transition and into his presidency. The memos were only known to the public after they were leaked following his firing allowing for the new Director, Andrew McCabe, to open up an Obstruction of Justice investigation into Trump. The first of the memos comes on January 6, 2017 which was one day after the infamous meeting that Susan Rice had written about in her final days in office. The goal was to brief Trump on the salacious bits of information from the Steel Dossier which would then be used to gauge his reaction. The meeting was done in an extremely careful manner as they only had a small setting and Comey began writing the memo as he got in the car.
For whatever reason, only this memo is getting attention from conservative news. If you follow along with Comey’s memos, they turn from the Russia allegations into conversations pertaining to Trumps NSA Michael Flynn. When looking at the Mueller Report, you just have to look at the timeline laid out in the table of contents for obstruction, you can see the events highlighted fall in line with the overall sequence of the Comey Memos.
The further supplement my point, the OIG Report even mentions itself that Comey leaked the memos in order to prompt a Special Counsel because he did not trust the DOJ to lead the investigation. At the time, Rod Rosenstein had been confirmed by the Senate to takeover overseeing the Russia Investigation after Sessions recused. He took over for Dana Boente who is now counsel at the FBI. Comey figured that if he leaked the memos, there would be too much public pressure for Trump to have his DOJ let Flynn go as one of his memos state.
What makes matters even more interesting is that by releasing the memo, Comey had made public evidence that was related to the investigation into Flynn. The title of the NYT article was, “Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation.” Really doesn’t get more blatant than that and Horowitz came to the same conclusion.
What is interesting, is that with the imminent indictment of Andrew McCabe from his own OIG Report, there are some parallels between the two. First, McCabe hindered the ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation. This was after the DOJ thought that he should be recused and the Wall Street Journal posted a story about how his wife, Jill McCabe, received campaign donations from Terry McAuliffe who is a longtime Clinton confidant. He also leaked it through a surrogate, like Comey, but he used his Special Counsel at the FBI, Lisa Page. Comey used his longtime friend Daniel Richman. Where Comey one upped McCabe was not only did he leak evidence of an ongoing investigation, he also started a new investigation into a sitting president in order to get him for a Watergate like investigation.
This all started clicking for me when reading this extra large footnote contained in the Memo OIG Report. The day before Comey was fired, Yates during her Senate Testimony on May 8, 2017 mentioned the investigation into Flynn, but revealed no evidence regarding the information. I don’t know if this spurred a knee jerk reaction from the Trump camp, but Horowitz took note and the investigation being revisited by Yates several months after she was removed as AAG. Once Comey leaked Memo 4, the evidence was out there. The large footnotes also mentions that Comey could have handled this in a completely different manner which would not have made evidence public for the Flynn Investigation.
If we move to the day after Comey was fired, on May 9, 2017, Lisa Page texts Peter Strzok that they need to lock in [Redacted]. In a formal chargeable way. Soon. Was the redacted Flynn?
So now, you are probably wondering why Comey would want a Special Counsel appointed over Andrew McCabe? Three reasons, one McCabe was already being looked at for his leak of the the Clinton Foundation Investigation and ultimately charges were recommended. Like the Clinton Foundation case, McCabe also had a conflict of interest with the Flynn Case due to his encounter with Robyn Gritz. Last, with hindsight and Comey saying that he wanted a special counsel, we tend to automatically think that he wanted Robert Mueller. Was there another person Comey could have had in mind?
Going back to the Clinton Email Investigation, there was talk about appointing a Special Counsel for that. Strzok comes up with the perfect person to recommend to Comey, Patrick Fitzgerald.
This is where things really started clicking for me because I knew of Fitzgerald from this obscure article I read when I first started thinking that Comey was not on Trump’s team. The article itself deals with Trump floating pardons for people connected to Comey. The people are Scooty Libby who was prosecuted by Fitzgerald, Martha Stewart who was prosecuted by Comey, and Rod Blagojevich who was prosecuted again by Fitzgerald. If you think that Fitzgerald is a straight shooter, in the Blagojevich case, Obama was the only one that had no involvement in the corruption which was found under Operation Board Games. Fitzgerald made it a direct point that Obama was not involved, even though the case encapsulated everyone around Obama.
Also interesting, in his June 27, 2018 letter to Senator Grassley, Rod Rosenstein goes over his authority to promote a Special Counsel. In the letter itself, he specifically references Comey’s appointment of Fitzgerald and specifically states that the Mueller appointment is not like that one. Rosenstein did not give the Special Counsel all the authority of the Attorney General.
Earlier this year I pointed out how The Brookings Institute had written a report that outlined the obstruction case against Trump in Fabricated Obstruction and The Road Maps. My research eventually led to The Epoch Times expanding on the argument and adding more relevant information. When learning about Fitzgerald, I checked to see if there were any Brookings/Lawfare links to him being a Special Counsel and found a March 3. 2017 article by Norm Eisen of Brookings that said that Sessions, after his recusal, wasn’t enough and a Special Counsel should be appointed. When making his point about why it should be appointed, who did Eisen cite as an example? Fitzgerald in the Scooter Libby case, the same one that Rosenstein mentioned.
To summarize, I believe that there is enough evidence to show that Comey and his actions with these memos were for the sole intent of impeaching Trump. Fitzgerald already had impeached Blagojevich in Chicago so he had experience in that category. While people confuse Comey’s actions into sinking Hillary as a means of protecting Trump, in this scenario Comey would have gotten rid of both Trump and Clinton. It helps explain my point in The Comey Conundrum on why Obama would still be inviting Comey to the secret meeting on January 5, 2016 if he was the reason why Hillary lost the election. Talk about an insurance policy and thank the heavens for Rod Rosenstein.